GeneralOfDeath wrote:Remember that a well-regulated militia would be made up of individual landowners, each bringing their own equipment (see: gun) to the unit. So, in the end the second ammendment defends personal ownership for the purpose keeping civilian militias feasable.

No, it means that a certain amount of people who form a militia can have guns. It doesn't mean everyone and their dog can have one, because not everyone is part of the militia.

I have a number of assault weapons myself, so I have a vested interest in the subject.

Prior to Scalia's intervention, individual gun rights were a matter decided by the states. It wasn't considered a Constitutional issue until just recently. But like I said, that doesn't matter - once the Supreme Court rendered its decision it became Constitutional by definition.

Natalya wrote:What's that? I can't hear you over the sound of how banned you are.

aoffan23 wrote:No, it means that a certain amount of people who form a militia can have guns. It doesn't mean everyone and their dog can have one, because not everyone is part of the militia.

Patrick Henry, 3 Elliot Debates 168-169 wrote:“Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"

Back in the 18th century, a “regular” army meant an army that had standard military equipment. So a “well regulated” army was simply one that was “well equipped” and organized. It does not refer to a professional army. The 17th century folks used the term “standing army” or “regulars” to describe a professional army. In my opinion, “a well regulated militia” only means a well equipped militia that was organized and maintained internal discipline. It does not imply the modern meaning of “regulated,” which means controlled or administered by some superior entity. Federal control over the militia comes from other parts of the Constitution, but not from the Second Amendment.

The Militia is composed of the whole of the American People- A militia, therefore, is simply composed of *part* of the American people- as even in times of war the idea of arming every single citizen and sending them off to fight is absurd.

aoffan23 wrote:No, it means that a certain amount of people who form a militia can have guns. It doesn't mean everyone and their dog can have one, because not everyone is part of the militia.

Patrick Henry, 3 Elliot Debates 168-169 wrote:“Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"

Back in the 18th century, a “regular” army meant an army that had standard military equipment. So a “well regulated” army was simply one that was “well equipped” and organized. It does not refer to a professional army. The 17th century folks used the term “standing army” or “regulars” to describe a professional army. In my opinion, “a well regulated militia” only means a well equipped militia that was organized and maintained internal discipline. It does not imply the modern meaning of “regulated,” which means controlled or administered by some superior entity. Federal control over the militia comes from other parts of the Constitution, but not from the Second Amendment.

The Militia is composed of the whole of the American People- A militia, therefore, is simply composed of *part* of the American people- as even in times of war the idea of arming every single citizen and sending them off to fight is absurd.

I can't tell if you're arguing against my point, but that's exactly what I was saying.

And let's be honest here, people saying that everyone should have guns for self-defense are completely oblivious to the big picture. If everyone has guns to defend themselves, then everyone will have guns to attack other people. So rather than being faced with the possibility of someone coming at you with a gun, you're facing the certainty that they'll come at you with a gun (assuming they come at you in the first place). Besides, if everyone knows that everyone has guns, people's trust in each other will crumble, and any attacks will likely be made when the person has no chance to defend themselves, unless they have no intent of living beyond that moment.

Also, do you have any idea how many incidents there would be of mass shooting frenzies because someone shoots someone else, then someone shoots that person, and it just gets out of hand from there? I'm not saying you think this, but I'm just directing this to anyone who thinks that everyone should be allowed to carry a gun on them.

You said everyone was not part of The Militia- All american citizens, by virtue of being american citizens, are part of The Militia (although they may or may not be part of a militia)

I don't think that everyone owning guns would somehow cause all trust to crumble, that's absurd. I think the certainty of someone being armed is a very good deterrent against doing stupid things like theft, assault (sexual or otherwise) and murder.

I am willing to deny firearms rights to felons and the mentally ill if you still feel uneasy, providing there is some method for felons and the mentally ill to clear their names, perhaps after a two decades of good behavior or after a board of psychiatrists deems a man sane enough to be trusted with a firearm and any other rights that they may otherwise be denied. It would be horrible to create second-class citizens, and we should avoid that as much as possible.

I think that many more people are willing to use a firearm in self defense, then are willing to actively murder with one.

I'm really fed up with this argument, so I'm just going to copy/paste what I said on the subject elsewhere:

Rather than just the killings, I find it interesting what guns do with society. I saw an interview with this Texan fellow on a Belgian documentary who was asked how he measures in the guns when he's for instance at a bar, and could potentially get into a heated discussion. He said because they are aware of the guns, they simply avoid arguments altogether. Well that's nice, being imprisoned and having your freedom of speech compromised by your own society's guns. I laugh when I hear the same people claim they feel a lot 'safer' because of their guns. Though I don't think numbers are as important in this discussion as people are cracking them up to be ('overall' decrease of violence doesn't help any of the victims) I'd love to see the number of cases where guns actually prevented deaths - taking into account that the guy causing the gun fight happened to have a gun on him, whereas if he didn't, he couldn't have started it anyway. Yeah, you can kill people easily through other means, but hear this. It's not an experiment we'd be able to do, but give one psycho an assault rifle and another a knife, and send them into a school. Who would get the most kills? Which school would you rather be in? Which guy would you have the best chance of disarming, or running from? I think the choice is easily made. Guns, no matter what other views you have on them, are certainly the easiest way of killing large amounts of people. Yes, there are people who use their guns 'responsibly'. But who needs them? Who really needs them? Is these people's gun ownership really worth the lives of the casualties that will surely follow when you allow everyone to have guns? Well of course it is, to them, because they don't care about the victims. At all. Hence their poorly constructed 'arguments' such as 'teachers should have guns!' Hence, their apathy.

@keldoclock: I said "the militia", not "The Militia". I was referring to the hypothetical miltia I referred to ealier in the same sentence, where I referred to it as "a militia".

I don't understand how you can even say that more people are willing to use a gun in self-defense than for an actual crime. If everyone has the full rights to own and carry a gun, do you think people will fuck around with knives or fists to kill someone? No, they'll just make sure they shoot first. Or stab someone from behind, when they can't do anything about it. That's such a flawed argument.

Who are 'they'? I'm one person, not representing a group of people or any mass of land, and I don't go around prancing through the streets of Europe claiming everything here smells of roses if that's what you're thinking.